---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I join others in complimenting the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the detailed and careful way in which she conducted the science and heritage inquiry. She succinctly outlined the conclusions and recommendations of the committee today, and I shall take the opportunity to reinforce some of those in my remarks. Her leadership, together with the wise advice and counsel from Professor May Cassar and the skilled drafting of our Clerk, Christopher Johnson, have produced a report of lasting value to those responsible for the survival of the physical artefacts that embody much of our cultural heritage—our buildings, landscapes, works of art, books and all that we possess that tells us of our own and the world’s cultural history. The report has not only been welcomed and endorsed by the conservation community in the UK but has gained international recognition. This country is as rich as any in the world in its buildings and in the collections of its libraries, galleries and museums. Yet the number of people involved in using our renowned scientific and technological expertise to preserve, analyse and provide access to those treasures is small. We have leading experts in our institutions, but they work with meagre resources and without the support and understanding that they should receive from the Government. That is starkly illustrated by the fact, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport makes no mention in its strategic objectives of the need for the application of science and technology in the conservation of our cultural heritage. Its concern seems limited to providing access to our possessions today without adequate consideration of the need to ensure that that access will be sustained for future generations. The community has been particularly disappointed with the tone of the Government’s response to the report, which many have pointed out failed explicitly to acknowledge that there was a problem. Broadly speaking, their position is that all can be contained in the department’s overall objective of integrating social, economic and environmental factors into all its policy development. The lack of a specific recognition of the need for science and technology in conservation and access can in part be attributed to the absence of a full-time chief scientist with skills in the natural and physical sciences. We have advocated that such an appointment should be made and that the CSA should be the champion at departmental level for heritage science. I know from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that that suggestion was strongly supported by the OST, and I am pleased that it is being supported today by the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Waldegrave. There has been prolonged procrastination and confusion in making that appointment, which is highly regrettable, and it seems to be continuing. We welcome the intermediate appointment of Dr Michael Dixon as an interim CSA and hope that his recommendations are given rapid attention, but that does not seem to be happening. I believe that he has submitted his report—although there is some obscurity about that matter—yet here we are in June and there has been no response. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us news of progress in this matter. The lack of serious support from the DCMS is illustrated by its lack of a full backing for our recommendation that there should be a strategy for heritage science and that English Heritage should provide a secretariat to support the development of that strategy. The recommendation emphasised that the approach to developing objectives should be a bottom-up process, with all involved playing an equal part so that there would be general acceptance of the objective. The recommendation received strong support at the post-publication seminar that we heldlast November. For example, the British Library said that it, "““considers the need for a comprehensive national strategy for heritage science, embracing both movable and immovable heritage, to be absolutely fundamental and very strongly supports this recommendation””." Yet the government response was cool, questioning whether English Heritage had the necessary statutory authority to undertake such a role for both movable and immovable heritage. That is in contrast, as has been pointed out, to what the DCMS can do if it wishes to take part more proactively in supporting science in areas in which it carries responsibility. Let us take the example of its support for sports science. It has been pointed out to us by Icon that there is a focus for sports science in the National Sports Medicine Institute, funded by DCMS, and science gains a specific mention inthe justification for the considerable funding that the funding is providing to elite athletes, specifically in the support of young athletes aiming at the Olympics. That approach is to be contrasted with the approach to heritage science, in which the department is satisfied to leave everything to NDPBs with no direct engagement from the department. In summary, I find it extraordinary that there is so little support for the application of science and technology to the preservation and display of our heritage treasures and that there is so little recognition of the importance that that has to the nation. It is all very well to transfer money from culture to sport, for example in supporting the Olympics; but we should realise that many of the people who will come to London in 2012 will do so as much because they know that London is a treasure trove of historically fascinating artefacts rivalling those found anywhere in the world as to watch the Olympic events. I encourage the DCMS to reconsider its priorities and to follow the enthusiastic and positive responses of others such as the Research Councils.